Digital SLR Cameras - Recommendations

[marakka]

SLR refers to the way the image is captured. If the camera isn't an SLR it won't be. The only thing you could maybe do is use the lens with another body, but most manufacturers have specific lenses that aren't interchangealbe. Nikon lenses are only used on Nikon camera's and such.

[YAN-3]

AJ each camera manufacturer uses their own design for mounting lenses, kinda like BMW designing e60 head sockets on 740il flywheels. (:loco::curse::weak::down:) WHY????

any who, you can for most cameras get mounting rings, step ups or downs depending on the body and the lens to be used. check them out on eBay, or do a Google search for mounting ring adapters.

[YAN-3]

Thats cheaper than I picked mine up from AAFES for. Just make sure you are getting a new one at that price and not a refurb.

Trust me.... you won't be upset with it. Take some time, learn it and figure out the post-photo editing and you'll be set. I've got over 150 pictures on my D50 already and I just got it last week. I can't wait to get to some net where I can actually upload them.

Yan.... where do you host yours at without having them downsized?

unfortunately i use photobucket for the most part, and they do resize, you have an option as to how small or big they resize it. its not too bad in my opinion.

[YAN-3]

something like this.

LINK

[Low Level E30]

I just went and got my "old" Minolta 35mm SLR out --- it's a Maxxum 5, and is wearing a 28-200mm lens that I bought for it. It's in great shape, and I'd love to use it if I can fit it to a new digital SLR.

This is it here:

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2002_reviews/maxxum5.html

[BDSax]

why dont you just get a website with your own domian, they arent that expensive

[CorvallisBMW]

I would recommend the Canon Rebel XT or XTi over the D40. I think Canon has better lenses and a wider selection, IMO. For a lot of people it comes down to brand loyalty, but since I have never owned either a Canon or Nikon i put them side by side and picked the Canon. I splurged and got the 17-85mm f/3.5 IS lens, which is F**KING SWEET, along with a 70-300mm and a 50mm f/1.8 Macro. I am still learning, but I absolutely LOVE LOVE LOVE it. It cost a lot of $ but is way worth it. Check out the XT or XTi before you settle on the D40.

[marakka]

You may be able to use that lens with a new SLR, but you'll probably lose the autofocus. The 18-200mm lens I'm looking at is around 250 if that makes any difference in your decision on manufacturer.

Ewww!!! He said the "c" word. *LOL* I don't think you'll have any problems with finding accessories for either unit. I had a buddy go nuts with his camera outfit and buy tons of stuff for his D50 within the last 2 months. He now sits with a 18-55mm, 55-200mm, 70-300mm, 150-500mm, and a monsterous 650-1300mm with 2x teleconverter. We were out taking pictures of the moon last night with that thing. INSANE. B&H Photo is one of the biggest photo shops and will carry everything you need to get in the door and out of your wallet.

[Digitalwave]

AJ, just to put your mind at ease, there is no such thing as an SLR that can take video :) You might want to www.howstuffworks.com for SLR cameras.

I don't want to get into things because I don't really agree with anything that has been said in this thread, especially about buying cheap do-it-all lenses like an 18-200mm or a 70-300mm. SLR photography is more about the lens than the camera body, and people tend to forget that. Each of my 5 lenses was almost as much if not more than my camera body was, EACH.

When you figure that SLR photos need much more post processing (read: Photoshop work) and aren't as versatile as most point and shoots if you only get the kit 18-55mm lens, people get in over their heads. Most point and shoots have an equivalent 12-400mm lens, and are usually optically stabilized!

I'm die-hard Canon, so I'd recommend www.photography-on-the.net/forum - by far the best photography forum I've experienced.

[YAN-3]

i must agree with TJ, my favorite lens (50mm f1.4) cost me a nice $500, not including the polarizer! but for starters, a kit lens will do fine. i would recommend the 18-70mm instead of the 18-55.

[marakka]

Yer right TJ. Ain't knockin ya on anything you've said. Just remember we's entry level people and you and Yan are a lil more advanced than we are. I don't have time to swap between a few different lenses and thats where the larger do it all works better for me. In the end, the product I put out is a lot more advanced than what I was used to and keeps me striving for better shots. I may get into the bigger lenses, but until then I'm happy with my setups :D

[CorvallisBMW]

i must agree with TJ, my favorite lens (50mm f1.4) cost me a nice $500, not including the polarizer! but for starters, a kit lens will do fine. i would recommend the 18-70mm instead of the 18-55.

I agree completely. The Canon 17-85mm IS lense costs a lot ($600) but is worth every penny. I decided to forgoe the 18-55mm kit lense all together and spring for that one. Also, if you don't need the extremely fast f/1.4 50mm, you can get the f/1.8 50mm for under $100. And the basic 70-300mm lense is about $180 or $220 if you want USM focusing (and for $40, you do want it). with those 3 lenses I have everything I need to dive pretty deep in to digital photograpy. In the future I'm sure I will upgrade to higher quality lenses, but for now my skills lag far behind my hardware :)

[marakka]

I'm with him ^^^ Even with the basic 18-55mm kit, a polarizer and a 3x teleconverter I'm still lost most of the time. I took 227 pictures yesterday and managed to salvage 8 after editing.

[Digitalwave]

I'm with him ^^^ Even with the basic 18-55mm kit, a polarizer and a 3x teleconverter I'm still lost most of the time. I took 227 pictures yesterday and managed to salvage 8 after editing.

There is such thing as a 3x teleconverter? I've never heard of one. Are you using a teleconverter with the kit lens? Teleconverters destroy the optical quality and autofocus response on almost all but the very best lenses, I would sell yours if you are actually using one on a kit lens.

I agree completely. The Canon 17-85mm IS lense costs a lot ($600) but is worth every penny. I decided to forgoe the 18-55mm kit lense all together and spring for that one. Also, if you don't need the extremely fast f/1.4 50mm, you can get the f/1.8 50mm for under $100. And the basic 70-300mm lense is about $180 or $220 if you want USM focusing (and for $40, you do want it). with those 3 lenses I have everything I need to dive pretty deep in to digital photograpy. In the future I'm sure I will upgrade to higher quality lenses, but for now my skills lag far behind my hardware :)

I've used the 17-85 IS USM before and I think its way overpriced. The only thing I liked about it was the IS. It felt like a toy and the aperture is only marginally faster than the kit lens. There are much better choices out there for the money. Also, the USM on the 70-300 isn't true USM. All of Canon's 70-300 lenses, besides the $550 70-300 IS USM are regarded as some of the worst lenses that Canon sells. For the money, the $200 Sigma 70-300 APO DG is the way to go.

[CorvallisBMW]

There is such thing as a 3x teleconverter? I've never heard of one. Are you using a teleconverter with the kit lens? Teleconverters destroy the optical quality and autofocus response on almost all but the very best lenses, I would sell yours if you are actually using one on a kit lens.



I've used the 17-85 IS USM before and I think its way overpriced. The only thing I liked about it was the IS. It felt like a toy and the aperture is only marginally faster than the kit lens. There are much better choices out there for the money. Also, the USM on the 70-300 isn't true USM. All of Canon's 70-300 lenses, besides the $550 70-300 IS USM are regarded as some of the worst lenses that Canon sells. For the money, the $200 Sigma 70-300 APO DG is the way to go.

I was a bit skeptical of the low price for the 70-300, and perhaps that is why it's so cheap. For the same price, is the sigma really that much better?